* For a while, yesterday’s pension reform debate in the Senate Executive Committee focused on the state’s past failure to make pension payments. But one Senator objected to the claims by unions that this is all the General Assembly’s fault…

Teachers unions have protested cuts to their benefits, saying it was lawmakers’ actions, skipping payments into pension funds, that created the debt.

Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno shot back during a hearing, presenting old paperwork from 2005 showing that both the Illinois Education Association and Illinois Federation of Teachers supported skipping the payment then.

Topinka was furious about the pension payment holidays back then and, as it turns out, she was right.

*** UPDATE *** From the Illinois Federation of Teachers…

SB 27 originally contained other pension language including changes to the Early Retirement Option and end of career salary increases that reduced the state’s cost for pensions by over $80 billion. In addition to supporting these pension reforms, the unions also supported increased gaming revenues, a higher cigarette tax, or the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds to cover pension costs. The leadership refused to consider these options and chose to add the pension holiday at the last minute. We never supported that provision of the bill.

YDD,
And the irony is that without substantial pension reform, ed funding and human services will take a huge hit in next year’s budget to accomodate the growing pension payment and another huge hit the year after that and the year after that …

Is that the whole story? I’d bet the “if necessary” vote went along with “provided it is made up in the next year” or whatever. I’m thinking this is a bit of a half truth and misleading in order to inflame.

As a member of AFSCME, I am relieved they were not proponents of that bill in 2005. As I understand it, AFSCME, at some point in the past, actually filed a lawsuit to force pension funding, but the courts struck it down.

“Funding Policy and Annual Pension Cost. Member contributions are based on fixed percentages set by statute ranging from 4.0% to 12.5%. The state’s funding requirements have been established by statute (Public Act 88-593) effective July 1, 1995 and provide for a systematic 50-year funding plan with an ultimate goal to achieve “90% funding” of the systems’ liabilities. In addition, the funding plan provides for a 15-year phase-in period to allow the State to adapt to the increased financial commitment. Once the 15-year phase-in period is complete, the State’s contribution will then remain at a level percentage of payroll for the next 35 years until the 90% funded level is achieved. However, Public Act 94-0004 decreased the required funding levels for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to $938.400 million and $1.375 billion,
respectively, and requires the State’s contribution to increase in equal annual increments from fiscal years 2008 to 2010 to ensure that the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 decreases have no longterm effect on contributions.”

Yes members never got a holiday(unlike Soc Security currently)
I think it was AFSCME taht did sue maybe more than once, The courst said they Constitution requires payment out not payment in.
Legally correct. Financially foolish but courts rule on law,mostly

AFSCME does not allow the members to vote on anything other than the contract. Unless you are a Local Union President or one of AFSCME ’s Council, it doesn’t matter what the members think. If this were the IEA then it should just pertain to TRS, but in Illinois anything is possible. The pension systems have been raided by the GA for over fifty years, Ragdono wants to place blame on something that happened in 2005? Governor Edgar understood the problem, inherited a deficit, and in less than 5 years turned it around, leaving Ryan and the GA a surplus of money. Ryan is in prison, Blagojevich is is in Prison, the real question is why the GA is not serving time with them.

==When is Madigan going to be held accountable for the decision to skip two years of pension contributions making an already bad situation much worse?==
Certainly never for that. He does quite well in elections in his district, and he controls any districting. Only chance to hold him accountable for anything would probably be a politically motivated republican prosecutor going after him for accepting campaign contributions via his property tax apppeal firm, but Madigan is no dummy, so that won’t be easy.

Just for the record, the Pension Bonds were issued, but under a separate bill. They have turned out to be a good deal for the state, since the funds that they enabled putting into the pension systems’ investment portfolio have outpaced the interest on the bonds. It would be a good time now to issue pension bonds, with interest rates so low. But while it would be good policy, it would be bad politics. People would scream the “B” word, and obscure the fact that this would be borrowing to invest, rather than borrowing to spend.